The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These two categories massively overlap and are confusing. British is a larger, more useful and current national category PatHadley (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part a series of more than 200 occupational categories under Category:English people by occupation. No reason has been offered for ceasing to categorise English archaeologists separately when we categorise other occupations in this way. Unless there is some particular concern relating to archaeology, the nominator should either propose upmerging all the English-ppl-by-occupation categories, or none of them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 16 out of 170 is not "massive overlap". We keep British as a holder category plus a category that can be used for people who for whatever reason do not fit under English, Welsh, Scottish or other possible sub-divisions. It is also useful when not all three of those are justified in a category. At the same time I am sure there are Archeologists from before 1700 who were English but it would be odd to directly categorize them as British, maybe not many, but a few, so we might as well keep this category. In fact under any case we should keep this category. There might be an argument for renaming it to Category:Archaeologists from England since we rarely use the adjectival form on levels that are not that of independent countries, but with Britian and Spain we have a strong practice to use the adjectival form because of the nature of their first level subdivisions, and because of historic issues I doubt we will ever have a change of practice with those. I think the current system works and should be kept. It is inconsistent with some other places, but that is because the reality on the ground is different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "British" refers to the United Kingdom as a whole (or at least Great Britain; Northern Ireland may vary but that's another tinned container of Megadrilacea). "English" refers to people who are specficially from England, as opposed to Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, et-cetera. No purpose would be served, and no value would be provided to users of the category tree, to increase ambiguity and decrease accuracy by making "British" synonymous with "English", particularly as, as pointed out above, "English" is the standard - and correct - method of categorising people who are, in fact, from England. - The BushrangerOne ping only06:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an issue that affects hundreds of categories. It is (frankly) busy Scottish nationalist editors who keep these rather questionable distinctions going, diffusing all British categories to their component parts. But there we are. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename -- There is a potential ambiguity as to whether the person is from England or studying England. In practice, the problem is not a significant one, becuase most archaeologists will study the region in which they live. This may be different with archaeologists working on Italy, Greece, Egypt etc. My preference would be for categories not based on nationality or ethnic origin, but the area mainly studied. In view of the size of the category, it is undesirable to have merge, because that will produce an inconveniently large category, which we would need to split. POssibly rename to Category:Archaeologists of England, and provide a headnote that the category is concerned with archaeologists studying England. If anything it is the British category that is the problem; that needs to be split according to the four home countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a rename proposal, that is a repurpose proposal. However this is meant to be a by nationality category, and I think we should keep it that way. For one thing, Archeologists studying ancient Greece will be operating in an area much larger than modern Greece. We have categories like Category:Egyptologists that are for people by area of study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Preferrably rename as nom. Alternatively, since a damehood is the femal equivalent of a knighthoed, merge with "Actors awarded British knighthoods". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed at Category talk:Songs written by Morris Levy and at User talk:Richhoncho#Category:Songs written by Morris Levy. The issue is that, although Morris Levy has been credited as the co-writer of several notable songs, there is no evidence that, in fact, he did so. Levy was a record company boss in the 1950s-60s who - as sources like this, this, this, this, and others, demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt - claimed the credit for writing songs that were, in fact, written by others (mostly black American R&B musicians). He had close Mafia links, and Allmusic describe him as "a notorious crook who swindled artists out of their owed royalties". The fact that he was (and probably still is) legally credited with writing some songs should not mean that we need to have an erroneously titled category of "Songs written by...." him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the songs from the category that make it clear in the article that Levy did not write them. However other songs it says in the article that Levy wrote them. I think the first step if you believe he did not would be to get sources and analize those articles to make it clear that Levy did not write the songs involved. On the other hand just because he claimed credit for writting some songs he did not does not mean he didn't actually write any songs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless empty. So long as there are articles in this category, it should be kept as part of the series under Category:Songs by songwriter. If editors believe (for whatever reason) that an article has been wrongly included in this category, then that is a matter to take up at the article level, by citing the relevant sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Propose upmerging to the individual collaborators rather than the name of the collaboration itself per WP:SONGS#Categories: songwriter credits should be split to the individuals. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by marketing name affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This is supported by WP:SONGS which states, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members. Also per previous discussions. The Bee Gees and The Miracles and numerous others. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Three subcategories for mayors of individual towns in North Carolina; each has just one entry, and per WP:POLITICIAN each is too small for any of its mayors to count as notable just for being mayors. Hope Mills' mayor went on to serve in the state legislature, and thus has an article on that basis; Canton's was an unsuccessful candidate for lieutenant governor of the state, and thus while his notability is still iffy the fact that he was a mayor isn't what got him on here; Mooresville's is pure prod bait as his article makes no claim of notability at all besides his mayoralty. The articles should be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in North Carolina — but since few to no other mayors of these towns will qualify for articles of their own, the town-specific subcategories fall afoul of WP:SMALLCAT. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
